Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for...
Transcript of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for...
THE PROPOSED DASBERG BOERDERY: CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW DAM
ON PORTION 5 OF
FARM VAN DER WATTSKLRAAL NO.399, SWELLENDAM, WESTERN CAPE
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for comment
January 2018
DEADP reference number: 16/3/3/2/E3/10/1003/17
VOLUME 1
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 2
DASBERG BOERDERY
PROPOSED DASBERG BOERDERY: CONSTRUCTIONOF A NEW DAM
On Portion 5 of Farm van der Wattskraal No.399, Swellendam, Western Cape
DEA&DP Ref No.: 16/3/3/6/7/E3/10/1278/16
PREPARED FOR:
Dasberg Boerdery Pty (LTD)
P.O. Box 21
Riviersonderend
7250
Tel: 021 261 1565
PREPARED BY: EnviroAfrica
P.O. Box 5367
Helderberg
7135
Tel: 021 – 851 1616
Fax: 086 – 512 0154
CONTENTS
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 3
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2. NEED AND DESIRABILITY .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 NEED .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 DESIRABILITY ......................................................................................................................................... 10 The proposed location of the dam site is considered ideally suited for the construction of the dam. ...... 10
3. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ................................................... 11 3.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ACT 107 OF 1998) .................................. 11 3.3 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT ....................................................................................... 13 3.4 EIA GUIDELINE AND INFORMATION DOCUMENT SERIES......................................................... 13 3.6 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT ........................................ 14
4. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 SITE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPOSED DAM ........................................................................ 15 4.2 ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 NO-GO ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................................................... 16
5. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 17
5.1 LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 VEGETATION .......................................................................................................................................... 17 5.3 FRESHWATER ........................................................................................................................................ 19 5.4 CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................................. 19 5.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 20 5.6 HERITAGE FEATURES ......................................................................................................................... 20
6. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ........................................................................ 21
7. DETAILS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ......................................................................... 25
8. SPECIALIST STUDIES .................................................................................................................................... 27
8.1 CRITERIA FOR SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS .......................................................... 27 8.2 BRIEFS FOR SPECIALIST STUDIES ................................................................................................. 27
9. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................................ 30
9.1 Heritage Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 30 9.2 Freshwater Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................... 31 9.3 Botanical Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 40
10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS & CUMMULATIVE EFFECT ............................................................................. 45
11. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 47
12. DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF THE EAP ................................................................................................... 49
FIGURES
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 4
Figure 1: Aerial image of the site________________________________________________________8
Figure 2: Aerial image showing the various site alternatives__________________________________15
Figure 3: Image indicating proposed dam location with surrounding land use_____________________17
Figure 4: Location of the proposed dam in the landscape showing the Overberg CBA overlay________18
Figure 5: Image of vegetation associated with the stream on the proposed site___________________ 9
Figure 6: Image indicating vegetation type that would have been present at the proposed site_______ 22
Figure 7: Image of Wetlands and Rivers associated with the proposed site______________________ 33
Figure 8: Image of ESAs associated with the proposed site__________________________________ 33
Figure 9: Image of unchanneled valley bottom wetland associated with the proposed site___________34
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of 2014 EIA regulations (as amended) triggered____________________________12
Table 2: Summary of NEMA EIA Public Participation Process ________________________________ 25
Table 3: Freshwater Impact Assessment Summary from Specialist_____________________________33
Table 4.1: Botanical Impact Assessment Summary from Specialist_____________________________41
Table 4.2: Botanical Impact Assessment Summary from Specialist_____________________________42
Table 5: Summary Impact Significance___________________________________________________45
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: LOCATION MAPS
APPENDIX 2: LAYOUT PLANS & SENSITIVITY MAPS
APPENDIX 3: DASBERG BOERDERY (Pty) Ltd. BUSSINESS PLAN
APPENDIX 4: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX 5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
APPENDIX 6: CORRESPONDENCE WITH DEADP
APPENDIX 7: SPECIALIST REPORTS
APPENDIX 8: IMPACT ASSESSMENT RATING AND METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 9: PRELIMINARY DAM DESIGN AND METHODSTATMENT
APPENDIX 10: EAP CV’S
APPENDIX 11: SIGNED DECLARATIONS
APPENDIX 12: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX 13: RIVER MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACRONYMS
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 5
BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information System
CBA Critical Biodiversity Area
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DWA Department of Water Affairs
EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner
ECA Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989)
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMP Environmental Management Programme
HIA Heritage Impact Assessment
HWC Heritage Western Cape
I&APs Interested and Affected Parties
NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998)
NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)
NHRA National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999)
NID Notice of Intent to Develop
NWA National Water Act
OESA Other Ecological Support Area
SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
WULA Water Use Licence Application
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Agriculture is the main economic driver of the Overberg and mainly responsible for the socio-
economic stability of the area. SW Viljoen Boerdery started from very small beginnings, owning
very little of his own land. However, good management and business decisions turned it into
one of the most successful farming units in the Overberg, planting approximately 2 300 ha of
grain together with up to 8 000 sheep breeding stock and winning numerous awards for good
farming practices. In order to stay successful farmers are increasingly under pressure to
perform better and to minimise risks. The owner believes that farming is not a right, but a
privilege and has been looking for opportunities to establish a successful BEE partnership,
which will also enable land reform within the agricultural sector and will benefit loyal workers in
his business. The main criteria being that any such project must be viable over the long term
and must lead to positive agricultural contributions.
In order to minimise risks the owner is proposing to diversify its agricultural produce by
establishing a citrus branch on one of its properties. This is also seen as the perfect project for
realising land reform and BEE partnership. Various models were evaluated, and it was decided
to base this partnership on the PALS (Partnerships in Agri Land Solutions) model, which have
been successfully implemented by the Witzenberg PALS project (Department of Rural
Development and Land Reform). In order to establish the 105 ha of citrus orchards, irrigation
will be required. Water will be obtained from Eksteenkloof, but a storage dam must be
established.
Thus, consideration is being given to the construction of a farm storage dam on Portion 5 of
Farm van der Wattskraal No. 399, about 15,5 km east of Riviersonderend and 45,7 km west of
Swellendam. The proposed dam wall will be 19,5 m high and will have a capacity of
approximately 625 000 cubic meters. The area to be inundated will be approximately 8,8 ha.
The applicant is Dasberg Boerdery (PTY) Ltd who will undertake the activity should it be
approved. EnviroAfrica CC has been appointed as the independent environmental assessment
practitioner (EAP) responsible for undertaking the relevant EIA and the Public Participation
Process required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)
(NEMA).
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 7
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
It is proposed that a farm storage dam be constructed on Portion 5 of Farm van der Wattskraal
No. 399. Water will be used for the irrigation of proposed 105ha of citrus orchards.
The dam will be located on existing agricultural land (wheat farming) within the undulating
Rûens veld and on the same property where the 100ha of the 105 ha citrus orchards will be
established. The location was chosen to ensure the project life cycle costs are minimised
(gravity feed vs. pumping cost etc.) as no pump station will be required and water will flow with
gravity from the water source to the dam.
The citrus orchards will be developed on agricultural land previously used for wheat farming. It
should be noted that existing historical crop lands will be used for the cultivation of citrus
orchards and that the current footprint will not be enlarged. It is thus not virgin/ natural soil that
will be disturbed, but previously cultivated/ previously ploughed land. Please refer to Appendix
2.1 for layout plans for the proposed dam and for the cultivation of the orchards.
Figure 1 of Appendix 2.1 provides a layout plan for the proposed Dasberg dam as well as the
proposed layout for the pipeline extension and shows Portion 5 of van der Wattskraal 399
(5/399) and Remainder of farm van der Wattskraal 399 (RE/399). Figure 3 Appendix 2.1
provides a layout plan of the planned 105ha orchard cultivation in relation to the proposed dam.
It is proposed that 5ha of orchards will be developed on Remaining extent of van der Wattskraal
399 (RE/399), west of the N2. 100 ha of orchards will be developed on Portion 5 of farm van der
Wattskraal 399 (5/399), the same property on which Dasberg dam is proposed.
The proposed dam will have a maximum dam wall height of 19,5 m, a dam wall length of
approximately 550 m, and will have a capacity of approximately 625 000 cubic meters. The
water surface at full capacity will be approximately 8,8 ha. Please refer to Appendix 2.1 for the
layout plan of the proposed Dasberg Dam and Appendix 9 for the Preliminary Design Report
for the proposed dam which includes design drawings of the dam and associated infrastructure.
A new pipeline, approximately 1.5 km in length and a diameter of about 250 mm will be
constructed from the dam to the N2, where it will connect with an existing pipeline. Please refer
to Figure 5 & 6 Appendix 2.1 for the layout plan of the proposed pipeline route. The route has
been chosen to avoid the stream/ wetland habitat to the west of the property (Portion 5 of Farm
van der Wattskraal No. 399) and will extend through cultivated land (please refer to Appendix
2.2 Figure 3 for the sensitivity map). It is proposed the pipeline will cross the N2 within an
existing sheep culvert and connect to the existing pipeline on Remainder of the Farm Wattskraal
No. 399. The pipeline will be constructed on previously disturbed land and will thus not trigger
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 8
any listed activities in terms of NEMA 2014, as amended. The total footprint of the dam with
associated infrastructure is expected to be approximately 9.55 ha.
Access to the dam will be from existing farm roads, with access to the farm from the N2. Please
see Appendix 1 for locality maps.
For the proposed BEE project of 105ha citrus orchards. Water will be obtained from
Eksteenkloof within existing water extraction rights (240 000 m³). An additional 120 000m³
abstraction from Eksteenskloof will be needed to be combined with the existing 240 000m³ (to
be transferred to Wanderwatts kraal399/5). An additional 232 000m³ will be bought and
transferred to the Dasberg Dam for storage, as well as an additional 60 000m³ of summer listing
waster which does not have to be stored. This will give a total of 652 000m³ water that can be
stored in the proposed dam. A WULA process, was submitted in Apr 2017 of which the
reference number is Ref 4/5/1/H10J/Dasberg 399/5. Please also refer to Appendix 5.2.3.2 &
5.2.3.7.
With further investigation based on the Departments queries, the EAP would like to clarify that
the Scope and description of the proposed project does not involve the upgrade of a weir, which
the EAP erroneously mentioned in the Scoping Report. The weir does not form part of the scope
and will be used as is.
Figure 1: Aerial image showing site location, with a green polygon, in proximity to surrounding towns and
roads
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 9
2. NEED AND DESIRABILITY
In terms of the National Environmental Management Act, and EIA 2014 regulations, as
amended, the Scoping/EIA report must provide a description of the need and desirability of the
proposed activity. The consideration of “need and desirability” in EIA decision-making requires
the consideration of the strategic context of the development proposal along with the broader
societal needs and the public interest.
While the concept of need and desirability relates to the type of development being proposed,
essentially, the concept of need and desirability can be explained in terms of the general
meaning of its two components in which need refers to time and desirability to place – i.e. is this
the right time and is it the right place for locating the type of land-use/activity being proposed?
Need and desirability can be equated to wise use of land – i.e. the question of what is the most
sustainable use of land.
2.1 NEED
The Dasberg Boerdery business proposal (Appendix 3) motivates the need of the proposed
dam as follows:
Agriculture is the main economic driver of the Overberg and is also mainly responsible for the
socio-economic stability of the area. SW Viljoen Boerdery started from very small beginnings,
owning very little of his own land. However, good management and business decisions
turned it into one of the most successful farming units in the Overberg, planting
approximately 2 300 ha of grain together with up to 8 000 sheep breeding stock and winning
numerous awards for good farming practices. The owner believes that farming is a privilege,
not a right and is looking for opportunities to establish a successful Black Economic
Empowerment (BEE) partnership, which will enable land reform within the agricultural sector
and will benefit loyal workers in his business.
In order to minimise risks the owner is proposing to diversify its agricultural produce by
establishing a citrus branch on one of its properties. This is also seen as the perfect project
for realising land reform and BEE partnership. Various models were evaluated, and it was
decided to base this partnership on the PALS (Partnerships in Agri Land Solutions) model,
which have been successfully implemented by the Witzenberg PALS project (Department of
Rural Development and Land Reform). The establishment of the citrus branch will create the
opportunity to increase staff on the farm. According to the business plan, there are currently
13 families who will directly benefit from the expansion of the citrus orchards, of which 3 are
female workers and the main breadwinners for their families.
In order to establish the citrus orchards, irrigation will be required. It is therefore of critical
importance to the success and feasibility of this business proposal, which is expected to create
a number of jobs in the area, that there be sufficient supply and storage of irrigation water for
the proposed expansion of the production of citrus.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 10
2.2 DESIRABILITY
The following factors determine the desirability of the area for the proposed Dasberg dam.
2.2.1 Location and Accessibility
The proposed location of the dam site is considered ideally suited for the construction of the
dam.
From an engineering point of view, the location was chosen to ensure the project life cycle costs
are minimised (gravity feed vs. pumping cost etc.). The proposed site location is preferred due
to the favourable soil and foundation conditions. The site is also in close proximity to the source
of water and the citrus orchards will be developed on the same property as the proposed dam.
Access to the farm will be from the N1, the site can be accessed via existing farm roads, no
additional roads will need to be constructed.
Location maps are included in Appendix 1 with site photographs in Appendix 4.
2.2.2 Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
The site is largely surrounded by agricultural activities, in particular crop cultivation (wheat
farming). This is evident in the aerial image, Figure 1 above and site photographs in Appendix
4.
The proposed activity will therefore not be “out of character” with the surrounding land use and
is expected to have a negligible impact on the visual character of the area.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 11
3. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
The current assessment is being undertaken in terms of the National Environmental
Management Act (Act 107 of 1998, NEMA), to be read with section 24 (5): NEMA EIA
Regulations 2010. However, the provisions of various other Acts must also be considered
within this EIA.
The legislation that is relevant to this study is briefly outlined below.
3.1 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) states that everyone has a
right to a non-threatening environment and that reasonable measures are applied to protect the
environment. This includes preventing pollution and promoting conservation and
environmentally sustainable development, while promoting justifiable social and economic
development.
3.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ACT 107 OF 1998)
The National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended, makes
provision for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially detrimental to the
environment and which require authorisation from the relevant authorities based on the findings
of an environmental assessment. NEMA is a national act, which is enforced by the Department
of Environmental Affairs (DEA). These powers are delegated in the Western Cape to the
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP).
On the 4 December 2014 the Minister of Environmental Affairs promulgated regulations in terms of
environmental impact assessments, under sections 24(5) and 44 of NEMA, namely the EIA
Regulations 2014 (GN No. R 326) these regulations were amended in April 2017, and include:
• GN No. R. 327 (Listing Notice 1);
• GN No. R. 325 (Listing Notice 2); and
• GN No. R. 324 (Listing Notice 3).
Listing Notice 1 and 3 are for a Basic Assessment and Listing Notice 2 for a full Environmental
Impact Assessment.
According to the 2014 EIA regulations, as amended in 2017, the following potentially listed
activities may be triggered (refer to Table 1)
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 12
Table 1: Summary of 2014 EIA regulations triggered GN R327 Short description of relevant Activity(ies) in terms
of Listing Notice 1 Description of specific portion of the development that might trigger the listed activity.
12 The development of (iv) dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface area,
exceeds 100 m in size (a) within a watercourse
Development of infrastructure with surface measurement of approximately 8.8 ha is expected to be in the upper reaches of a small stream.
19 Moving more than 10 m³ of material from a water course.
Development of infrastructure with surface measurement of approx. 8.8 ha is expected to be in the upper reaches of a small stream.
27 The clearance of an area of 1 ha or more, but less than 20 ha of indigenous vegetation
GN R325 Short description of relevant Activity(ies) in terms of Listing Notice 2
Description of specific portion of the development that might trigger the listed activity.
16
Development of a dam, with s dam wall higher than 5m, or where the high-water mark if the dam will be increased with 10 ha.
The proposed dam wall is 19.5 m
GN R324 Short description of relevant Activity(ies) in terms of Listing Notice 3
Description of specific portion of the development that might trigger the listed activity.
12 Clearance of more than 300 m² of indigenous vegetation within critical biodiversity areas
The proposed activity will enable the clearance of approximately 8.8 ha of vegetation within a critical biodiversity area
14
The development of (iv) dams, where the dam, including infrastructure and water surface area exceeds 10m² in size
Development of infrastructure with surface measurement of approx. 8.8 ha is expected to be within a critical biodiversity area
The principles of environmental management as set out in section 2 of NEMA have been taken
into account. The principles pertinent to this activity include:
- People and their needs will be placed at the forefront while serving their physical,
psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests. The activity seeks to provide
additional employment and economic development opportunities, which are a local and
national need – the proposed activity is expected to have a beneficial impact on people,
especially developmental and social benefits, as well providing additional employment
and economic development opportunities.
- Development will be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. Where
disturbance of ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, pollution and degradation, and
landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage cannot be avoided, are
minimised and remedied. The impact that the activity will potentially have on these will
be considered, and mitigation measures will be put in place - potential impacts have
been identified and considered, and any further potential impacts will be identified during
the public participation process. Mitigation measures will be included in the EMP.
- Where waste cannot be avoided, it will be minimised and remedied through the
implementation and adherence of the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) –
this will be included in the EIR.
- The use of non-renewable natural resources will be responsible and equitable.
- The negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights will be
anticipated, investigated and prevented, and where they cannot be prevented, will be
minimised and remedied.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 13
- The interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties will be taken into
account in any decisions through the Public Participation Process.
- The social, economic and environmental impacts of the activity will be considered,
assessed and evaluated, including the disadvantages and benefits.
- The effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the
environment will be taken into account, by pursuing what is considered the best
practicable environmental option.
3.3 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT
The protection and management of South Africa’s heritage resources are controlled by the
National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999). South African National Heritage
Resources Agency (SAHRA) is the enforcing authority and in the Western Cape, SAHRA have,
in most cases, delegated this authority to Heritage Western Cape (HWC).
In terms of Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, SAHRA and/or HWC will require
a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) where certain categories of development are proposed.
Section 38(8) also makes provision for the assessment of heritage impacts as part of an EIA
process and indicates that if such an assessment is found to be adequate, a separate HIA is not
required.
The National Heritage Resources Act requires relevant authorities to be notified regarding this
proposed development, as the following activities are relevant:
- any development or other activity which will change the character of a site exceeding 5
000 m² in extent;
Furthermore, in terms of Section 34(1), no person may alter or demolish any structure or part of
a structure, which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the SAHRA, or the
responsible resources authority. Nor may anyone destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove
from its original position, or otherwise disturb, any grave or burial ground older than 60 years,
which is situated outside a formal cemetery administered by a local authority, without a permit
issued by the SAHRA, or a provincial heritage authority, in terms of Section 36 (3). In terms of
Section 35 (4), no person may destroy, damage, excavate, alter or remove from its original
position, or collect, any archaeological material or object, without a permit issued by the
SAHRA, or the responsible resources authority.
3.4 EIA GUIDELINE AND INFORMATION DOCUMENT SERIES
The following are the latest guidelines that form part of the DEA&DP’s Environmental Impact
Assessment Guideline and Information Document Series (Dated: October 2011):
✓ Guideline on Transitional Arrangements
✓ Guideline on Alternatives
✓ Guideline on Public Participation
✓ Guideline on Exemption Applications
✓ Guideline on Appeals
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 14
✓ Guideline on Need and Desirability
✓ Information Document on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities
✓ Information Document on Generic Terms of Reference for EAPs and Project Schedules
3.5 NATIONAL WATER ACT
Besides the provisions of NEMA for this EIA process, the proposed dam also requires
authorizations under the National Water Act (Act N0. 36 of 1998). The Department of Water
Affairs, who administer that Act, will be a leading role-player in the EIA.
Existing water extraction rights of 40 ha (240 000 m³) from the Eksteenskloof will be used.
Additional water rights might have to be obtained for which a WULA application process will be
launched.
In terms of Chapter 12 of the National Water Act, the proposed dam is considered a dam with a
safety risk. The dam therefore requires a permit to construct from the Dam Safety Office of the
Department of Water Affairs. The design and construction must conform to the conditions of the
Dam Safety Regulations as set out in Government Notice R139 in Government Gazette No.
35062 of 24 February 2012. Regulations 10 and 15 will be applicable to the proposed dam. A
licence to construct application will only be submitted after an application for the safety
classification of the proposed dam has been submitted, and only after the NEMA process has been
concluded.
3.6 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA)
is part of a suite of legislation falling under NEMA, which includes the Protected Areas Act, the
Air Quality Act, the Integrated Coastal Management Act and the Waste Act. Chapter 4 of
NEMBA deals with threatened and protected ecosystems and species and related threatened
processes and restricted activities. The need to protect listed ecosystems is addressed (Section
54).
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 15
4. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives have been considered during the Scoping phase and these are described below.
4.1 SITE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPOSED DAM
Two site locations for the proposed dam have been considered and investigated. Three
locations on the farms were identified as possible locations, and referred to as:
- Alternative A (preferred site alternative)
- Alternative B
These are indicated in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2: Areal image indicating Site Alternatives for the construction of Dasberg Dam. Alternative A is the
preferred site alternative and represented by the red polygon. The yellow polygon represents site alternative
B.
4.1.1 ALTERNATIVE B (NOT PREFERRED)
Alternative B, indicated by a yellow polygon in Figure 2 was suggested by the engineers. This
alternative was suggested as it would provide a more suitable catchment area and cause less
earth movement. A portion of the dam would then fall on a neighbouring farm. The neighbour
did not grant permission to build a portion of the dam on his land and therefore Alternative A
was suggested. Alternative B would also have needed a pump station to be constructed,
whereas with Alternative A, no pump station is needed as water would flow with gravity from the
water source to the proposed dam. Alternative A (preferred alternative) is represented by the
red polygon in Figure 2.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 16
4.1.2 ALTERNATIVE A (PREFERRED)
Alternative A, indicated by the red polygon in Figure 2 is the preferred alternative because of
gravitational flow of water. The location was chosen to ensure the project life cycle costs are
minimised (gravity feed vs. pumping cost etc.) as no pump station will be required and water will
flow with gravity from the water source to the dam. This will also reduce the development
footprint on the environment. This site location is favoured as is will be in closer proximity to the
new citrus orchards. No neighbouring farmers will be impacted or lose agricultural land by the
proposed construction of Dasberg dam.
4.2 ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the proposed dam is to provide the farm with enough water for its future
irrigation requirements. No activity alternatives were considered.
4.3 NO-GO ALTERNATIVE
This is the option of not developing the proposed dam. Although this might result in no potential
negative environmental impacts, the direct and indirect socio-economic benefits of not
constructing the storage dam will not be realised. As described in Section 2.1, it is of critical
importance to the success and feasibility of the business proposal to branch out citrus orchards
on farm, which is expected to create jobs in the area, that there be sufficient supply and storage
of irrigation water.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 17
5. SITE DESCRIPTION
5.1 LOCATION
The site is located on Portion 5 of Farm van der Wattskraal No. 399, about 15,5 km east of
Riviersonderend and 45,7 km west of Swellendam in the Western Cape (See Figure 1 above).
The dam will be located on existing agricultural land (wheat farming) within the undulating ruêns
veld. The site coordinates for the dam wall are: S 34o 7’52.79”, E20o 02’53.51”.
The Surveyor General code for the property is: C073000000003990005
Access to the farm is from the N2, the site can be accessed via existing access roads on the
property.
Please refer to Figure 3 below for the proposed dam location associated surrounding land use
and Appendix 1 for location maps.
Figure 3: Photo indicating proposed dam location and surrounding land use.
5.2 VEGETATION
The proposed dam location is on existing intensive agricultural land (wheat farming and grazing
land).
The dam will also absorb the upper reaches of a small stream (and its buffer zone of
approximately 40 m), which is likely to contain remaining elements of Central Ruêns Shale
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 18
Renosterveld. This vegetation type is considered as critically endangered vegetation (Refer to
Figure 4 and 5 below and Appendix 1).
The small stream has been included as an Ecological Support Area (ESA) in the Overberg
Critical Biodiversity Areas maps.
Figure 4: Location of the proposed dam in the landscape showing the Overberg CBA overlay
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 19
.
Figure 5: Vegetation associated with the stream on the proposed site
5.3 FRESHWATER
The dam will also absorb the upper reaches of a small stream (and its buffer zone of
approximately 40 m), which is likely to contain remaining elements of Central Ruêns Shale
Renosterveld (Critically endangered vegetation).
The small stream has been included as an Ecological Support Area (ESA) in the Overberg
Critical Biodiversity Areas maps.
Existing water extraction rights of 40 ha (240 000 m3) from the Eksteenskloof will be used.
Additional water rights might have to be obtained for which a WULA application process will be
launched.
5.4 CLIMATE
The area normally receives about 307mm if rain per year and because it receives most of its
rainfall during winter it has a Mediterranean climate. It receives the lowest rainfall (10 mm) in
December and the highest (40mm) in August. The monthly distribution of average daily
maximum temperatures shows that the average midday temperatures for Riviersonderend (the
closest town) range from 16.7°C in July to 27.8°C in January. The region is the coldest during
July when the temperature drops to 4.8°C on average during the night. (www.saexplorer.co.za).
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 20
5.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
According to the Swellendam Municipality IDP Review of 2017, socio-economic upliftment of
previously disadvantaged communities remains one of the main challenges faced by the
municipality.
Agriculture accounts for 13 % of the total employment of the municipalities working population.
There has been a negative GDPR growth in for the Agricultural sector as well as a net job loss
on the sector.
A 2014-15 farmworker survey show that the overall 62,63% of individuals living in farmworker
households have permanent jobs both on and off the farms they live on, 18.1% are unemployed
while 19.27% have either temporary or seasonal work. This means that 37% of those living on
farms are at some point in the next 12 months at risk of not being employed.
The official unemployment rate of 12.5% is only half of that of the national employment rate and
the lowest in the Overberg District. Employment opportunities have not increased, and there is a
definite need for economic development, and subsequent employment opportunities.
5.6 HERITAGE FEATURES
The National Heritage Resources Act requires relevant authorities to be notified regarding this
proposed development, as the following activities are relevant:
- any development or other activity which will change the character of a site exceeding 5
000 m² in extent;
A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) will have to be conducted as per the National Heritage
Resources Act as the total footprint of the proposed dam and associated infrastructure is
expected to be approximately 9.55 ha.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 21
6. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Environmental issues were raised through informal discussions with the project team,
specialists and authorities, as well as by Interested and Affected Parties during the public
participation period of the Scoping Report. All issues raised will be assessed in the specialist
reports and will form part of the Environmental Impact Report. Any additional issues raised
during the public participation will be listed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
The following potential issues have been identified
6.1 BIODIVERSITY
6.1.1 Botanical
According to a vegetation map the proposed site is situated in endangered Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld, but due to the fact that the area is intensely cultivated, loss of this vegetation type is not expected to be significant. Loss of natural vegetation of the surrounding area and river corridors is expected to be low, as the site it is almost entirely surrounded by agricultural land. However, there are still areas of natural vegetation that is expected to be inundated by the proposed dam. The dam is expected to absorb the upper reaches of a small stream (and its buffer zone of approximately 40 m), which is likely to contain remaining elements of Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld, which is considered to be critically endangered vegetation. A botanical impact assessment was conducted to determine if there is any other sensitive or endangered vegetation on the proposed site. A specialist has been appointed and findings are discussed in Section 9.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 22
Figure 6: Image indicating the type of vegetation (Central Ruen Shale Renosterveld) that would have been
present at the proposed dam location. Due to the fact the area is agricultural land, only a small strip of the
natural vegetation is still present around the stream.
6.2.2 Fauna
Because of the proximity to intensive cultivated areas it is not expected that the proposed dam
location will have a significant impact on fauna species. Avi-fauna (water species) may even
benefit from the dam. The impact on reptiles and amphibian will be much localised and may
result in species being displaced (snakes and lizards) but not significant permanent impact on
species is expected.
No further Faunal assessments are deemed necessary.
6.2 FRESHWATER
A fresh water impact assessment is proposed. This is due to the fact that the dam is expected to
absorb the upper reaches of a small stream (and its buffer zone of approximately 40 m), which
is likely to contain remaining elements of Central Ruêns Shale Renosterveld (which is
considered to be critically endangered vegetation). The small stream has also been included as
an Ecological Support Area (ESA) in the Overberg Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (Figure 3
above and Appendix 1). A fresh water specialist has been appointed, findings are discussed in
Section 9 of the report.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 23
6.3 HERITAGE
The possible impact on heritage resources has been identified as a possible environmental
impact as a result of the construction of the dam. The dam with associated infrastructure is
expected to have a footprint of approximately 9.55 ha. CTS Heritage conducted a Heritage
Screener and submitted a NID to Heritage Western Cape (Appendix 7.1.1 & 7.1.2). Findings
are discussed in Section 9 of the report.
6.4 VISUAL IMPACT
The potential impact on the sense of place of the proposed dam has also been considered. The
surrounding area is characterised by agricultural activities, as well as a number of farm dams in
the local area, and the proposed dam will therefore not be uncharacteristic for the area.
The sense of place is not expected to be altered by the proposed dam, and no further studies
are suggested.
6.5 SAFETY
Due to the size of the dam and dam wall, the proposed dam is a safety risk in terms of Chapter
12 of the National Water Act and will require authorisation from the Department of Water Affairs.
As mentioned in Section 3 above. A dam safety application was logged to the DWS. Please
refer to comments from BGCMA Appendix 5.2.3.7.
6.6 LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
Due to the location of the proposed dam, part of the dam will inundate existing agricultural lands.
The total footprint of the dam with associated infrastructure is expected to be approximately 9.55
ha. An area of approximately 9.55 ha of agricultural land will thus be lost in order to establish the
dam.
6.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
Although the construction of the proposed dam will create jobs during the construction phase of
the activity, the dam will indirectly create additional jobs during the operational phase. As
indicated in Section 2.1, the proposed dam is of critical importance to the success and feasibility
of the business proposal to expand the citrus orchards, which is expected to create opportunity
to increase staff on the farm.
The SW Viljoen workers trust owns initially 10 % of the share of Dasberg Boerdery (Pty) Ltd, but
with approval of the business proposal, will be allowed to purchase shares up to a maximum of
20%. The workers trust beneficiaries are the permanent employees of the SW Viljoen farming
group. The main goal of the trust is primarily uplifting. Typically, money will be used for medical
and pension funds, scholarships for potential students as well as retirement housing funds.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 24
There are currently 13 families that will benefit from the worker’s trust. With the approval of the
citrus branch there is potential to increase the workforce (Please refer to the Dasberg Business
Proposal attached as Appendix 3).
6.8 OTHER ISSUES IDENTIFIED
Any further issues raised during the public participation process or by the Competent Authority
not mentioned in this section, will be included in the Final EIR for decision.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 25
7. DETAILS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) were identified throughout the process. Landowners
adjacent to the proposed site, relevant organs of state, organizations, ward councillors and the
Local and District Municipality were added to this database. A complete list of organisations
and individual groups identified to date is shown in Appendix 5.1.1 and 5.2.1.
Public Participation was conducted for this proposed dam in accordance with the requirements
outlined in Regulation 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 as amended, as
well as the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning’s guideline on
Public Participation 2011. The issues and concerns raised during the scoping phase will be
dealt with in the EIA phase of this application.
As such each subsection of Regulation 54 contained in Chapter 6 of the NEMA EIA Regulations
will be addressed separately to thereby demonstrate that all potential Interested and Affected
Parties (I&AP’s) were notified of the proposed development.
Table 2: Public Participation Process
R41 Posters, Advertisement & Notification letters
(2) (a) (i) Poster were displayed at the Overberg Agri in Riviersonderend, on the door of Continental Café at
the corner of Main road and Van Riebeeck Ave, on the northern and southern boundary of the
property as well as adjacent to the proposed dam location (Refer to Appendix 5.1.4 for proof of
posters)
Posters were 60cm by 42 cm
(ii) N/A No alternative site
(2) (b) (iii) Notification letters were sent to the municipal ward councilor at the Swellendam Municipality (Refer
to the stamp on the I&APs register Appendix 5.1.1 & 5.1.3 for proof of notification letters sent)
(iv) Notification letters were sent to Overberg District Municipality and Swellendam Local Municipality (Please refer to the stamp on the I&Aps register Appendix 5.1.1 & 5.1.3
(v) Notification letters were sent to the following organs of state: o Department of Environment and Development Planning o Breede-Gourtiz Catchment Management Area o Cape Nature o Heritage Western Cape o Lower Breede River Conservancy Trust o WC Department of Agriculture and Land Use Management o Overberg Renosterveld Conservation Trust
(Please refer to stamp on the I&Aps register Appendix 5.1.1 for proof of notification letters sent)
(vi) Notification letters were sent to neighbours (Please refer to Appendix 5.1.1)
(2) (c) (i) An advert was placed in the Langberg Bulletin on 31 March 2017 (Please refer to Appendix 5.1.2)
R42 & 34 Register of I&AP
(a), (b), (c), (d)
A register of interested and affected parties was opened and maintained and is available to any
person requesting access to the register in writing (Please refer to Appendix 5.1.1 and 5.2.2 for
the list of Interested and Affected Parties).
R43 Registered I&AP entitled to comments
3
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 26
I&AP were given 30 days for comments during the initial public participation phase. The Post-Application scoping report was made available to all registered I&APs for comment. For proof please refer to the second round of public participation as per Appendix 5.2.2
R44 I&AP to be recorded
A summary of issues raised by I&AP are addressed in the comments and response report Refer to Appendix 5.1.6 & 5.2.3 for comments and response report summary
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 27
8. SPECIALIST STUDIES
Specialist studies were undertaken to provide information to address the concerns and assess
the impacts of the proposed development alternatives on the environment.
The specialists are provided with set criteria for undertaking their assessments, to allow for
comparative assessment of all issues. These criteria are detailed in the Terms of Reference to
each specialist and summarised below.
8.1 CRITERIA FOR SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
The impacts of the proposed activity on the various components of the receiving environment
will be evaluated in terms of duration (time scale), extent (spatial scale), magnitude and
significance. These impacts could either be positive or negative.
The magnitude of an impact is a judgment value that rests with the individual assessor while the
determination of significance rests on a combination of the criteria for duration, extent and
magnitude. Significance thus is also a judgment value made by the individual assessor. Each
specialist has their own methodology to determine significance.
8.2 BRIEFS FOR SPECIALIST STUDIES
8.2.1 Heritage Impact Assessment
Cedar Towers Services (CTS) Heritage conducted a Heritage Screener. Please find the report
attached Appendix 7.1
The terms of reference for the archaeological study will be as follows:
- To determine whether there are likely to be any important archaeological sites or
remains that might be impacted by the proposed development;
- To identify and map archaeological sites/remains that might be impacted by the
proposed development;
- To assess the sensitivity and conservation significance of archaeological sites/remains
in the inundation area;
- To assess the status and significance of any impacts resulting from the proposed
development, and
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 28
8.2.2 Freshwater Impact Assessment
Natasha van Haar from EnviroSwift completed the Freshwater Impact Assessment. Please find
the report attached as Appendix 7.2.
The terms of reference for the Freshwater assessment and River Rehabilitation Plan are as
follows:
- Literature review and assessment of existing information
- Site Assessment of the proposed activities and impact on the associated freshwater
systems This will include an assessment of the freshwater ecological condition, using
river health indices such as in-stream and riparian habitat integrity, aquatic macro-
invertebrates and riparian vegetation to determine set back lines and geomorphological
condition of the streams, which will then determine the overall Ecostatus of the streams
and provide data that will inform the Water Use Licence Application of the project. This
will include both the stream to be impacted by the dam development and the pump
station establishment.
- Describe ecological characteristics of freshwater systems and compile report based on
the data and information collected in the previous two tasks, describe ecological
characteristics of the freshwater systems, comment on the conservation value and
importance of the freshwater systems and delineate the outer boundary of the riparian
zones/riverine corridors.
- Evaluate the freshwater issues on the site and propose mitigation measures and
measures for the rehabilitation of the site as well as setback lines for future
development.
- Compilation of the documentation for submission of the water use authorisation
application (WULA) to the Department of Water Affairs (if deemed necessary).
8.2.3 Biodiversity Impact Assessment
Dave Mc Donald completed the Biodiversity Impact Assessment. Please find the report attached
as Appendix 7.3
The terms of reference for this study include the following:
- Describe the broad ecological characteristics of the site and its surrounds in terms of any
mapped spatial components of ecological processes and/or patchiness, patch size,
relative isolation of patches, connectivity, corridors, disturbance regimes, ecotones,
buffering, viability, etc.
- In terms of biodiversity pattern, identify or describe:
Community and ecosystem level:
o The main vegetation type, its aerial extent and interaction with neighbouring types, soils or
topography;
o The types of plant communities that occur in the vicinity of the site
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 29
o Threatened or vulnerable ecosystems.
Species and ecosystems level:
o Red List species (give location if possible using GPS;
o The viability of an estimated population size of the Red List species that are present
(include the degree of confidence in prediction based on availability of information and
specialist knowledge, i.e. High=70-100% confident, Medium 40-70% confident, low 0-40%
confident)
o The likelihood of other Red List species, or species of conservation concern, occurring in
the vicinity (include degree of confidence).
Other pattern Issues:
o Any significant landscape features or rare or important vegetation associations such as
seasonal wetlands, alluvium, seeps, quartz patches or salt marshes in the vicinity.
o The extent of alien plant cover of the site, and whether the infestation is the result of prior
soil disturbance such as ploughing or quarrying (alien cover resulting from disturbance is
generally more difficult to restore than infestation of undisturbed sites).
o The condition of the site in terms of current or previous land uses.
- In terms of the process, identify or describe:
o The key ecological “drivers” of ecosystems on the site and in the vicinity, such as fire.
o b. Any mapped spatial component of an ecological process that may occur at the site or in
its vicinity (i.e. corridors such as watercourses, upland-lowland gradients, migration
routes, coastal linkages or inland-trending dunes, and vegetation boundaries such as
edaphic interfaces, upland-lowland interfaces or biome boundaries)
o c. Any possible changes in key processes, e.g. increased fire frequency or
drainage/artificial recharge of aquatic systems.
o d. Would the conservation of the site lead to greater viability of the adjacent ecosystem by
securing any of the functional factors listed in the first bullet?
- Would the site or neighbouring properties potentially contribute to meeting regional
conservation targets for both biodiversity pattern and ecological processes?
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 30
9. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The specialist studies detailed in Appendix 7 were undertaken to determine significance of the
impact that may arise from the proposed development. The findings of the specialist studies are
summarised here. Full copies of the studies are included in Appendix 7.
The following studies were undertaken:
9.1 Heritage Impact Assessment
A heritage screener was conducted by CTS Heritage (Please see Appendix 7.1). Key findings
included:
9.1.2 Key findings
o There are no declared heritage sites within a 10km radius of the proposed development
site.
o Archaeological material does occur in the region, but the location of this development on
previously cultivated land makes any discovery if in situ, significant archaeological
heritage resources unlikely.
o In terms of palaeontology, the proposed dam is located on underlying sandstone and
Murdock deposits of the Early- to Mid-Devonian Voorstehoek Formation of the Ceres
Subgroup. According to the SAHRIS Fossil Heritage Browser, these deposits are of high
paleontological sensitivity, containing diverse shelly invertebrate.
o Bedrock exposure is very poor due to extensive superficial deposits.
9.1.3 Impact Assessment
o The proposed development of the dam will not have any negative significant impact on the
Heritage resources of the area.
o Any excavations into bedrock in this region could result in impacts to the significant
fossiliferous deposits and therefore it is suggested that a field assessment by a suitable
palaeontologist must be conducted.
9.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Should any heritage resources, including graves and human burials, archaeological
material and paleontological material be discovered during the development, all works
must be stopped immediate and HWC must be notified without delay.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 31
9.1.5 Conclusion
CTS Heritage conducted a Heritage Notice of Intend to Develop (NID) (Appendix 6.1.1)
and submitted it to Heritage Western Cape (HWC) for comments (Please refer to
Appendix 5.2.3.5. for comments). Comments from HWC dated 11 August 2017 stated
that since there is no reason to believe that the proposed dam expansion will impact on
heritage resources, no further action under Section 38 of the National Heritage
Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) is required. Precautionary mitigation measures as stated
above should be implemented.
9.2 Freshwater Impact Assessment
The Freshwater Impact Assessment was conducted by Natasha van Haar from EnviroSwift.
Please refer to Appendix 7.2 for the report.
9.2.1 Key findings
o The watercourse in which the dam is proposed falls within the Southern Coastal Belt
Ecoregion and within the Breede Water Management Area (WMA) and Riviersonderend
sub-Water Management Area (sub-WMA),
o The quarterly catchment indicated for the project footprint is H60K and the applicable
wetland vegetation unit is the East Coast Shale Renostervled, listed as critically
endangered.
o The proposed dam will intersect a natural valleyhead seep wetland and floodplain wetland
which are both indicated to be within a critically modified condition.
o The catchment in which the proposed dam falls has not been selected as a River
Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Area (FEPA).
o According to the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan for Swellendam Municipality, the
proposed dam will intersect an Ecological Support Areas (ESA 2) which is associated with
a watercourse and wetland area. (ESA 2 are areas likely severely degraded or with no
natural cover remaining which require restoration. These areas are not essential for
meeting biodiversity targets but play a vital role in supporting the functioning of Critical
Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) or protected areas, vital for delivering ecosystem services).
o The proposed dam will be located on an ephemeral watercourse which has been
indicated as a combination of two Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) features namely valleyhead
seep wetland and floodplain wetland as per the WCBSP. However, as per inspection by
EnviroSwift the feature was considered to be more represented of an unchanneled valley
bottom wetland.
o The unchanneled valley bottom wetland was dominated with obligate wetland species
Juncus sp. with scattered, isolated patches of Scirpus nodosus and Phragmites australi.
o Cultivation of wheat within the wetlands catchment has resulted in decreased surface
roughness (less natural vegetation cover), exposure of bare soils and in some areas
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 32
compaction of soils. This has decreased the natural infiltration rates of soils and has
increased stormwater runoff and wetland flood peaks.
o Three small impoundments have been created in the upper reaches of the unchannelled
valley bottom wetland and a road has also been constructed immediately downstream of
the area earmarked for the construction of the dam. The features have resulted in the
alteration of the natural hydrological flow patterns through the wetland. The dams impede
surface flow to downstream wetland habitat. All areas upstream of the impoundments and
the road which would have been characterised by seasonal and temporary wetland
habitat under natural circumstances remains saturated for longer.
o The stockpiling of rocks within the unchannelled valley bottom wetland has had an impact
on the natural flow patterns through the wetland and has resulted in the loss of natural
wetland vegetation in stockpile areas.
o An increase in sediment laden stormwater runoff from surrounding disturbed areas has
resulted in the erosion and sedimentation.
o The overall wetland health score calculated for the unchannelled valley bottom wetland in
its present state falls within Category C – Moderately modified: A moderate change in
ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place but the natural habitat
remains predominantly intact.
o The development of the proposed dam will result in a decrease in the hydrology and
vegetation condition of the wetland from a Category C Present Ecological State (PES)
(Moderately modified) to a Category E PES (Seriously Modified). The overall health of the
wetland after the development of the dam will fall within a Category D PES (Largely
modified: A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota
and has occurred).
o In terms of the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS). The unchannelled valley
bottom wetland was determined to be of a moderate EIS (Wetlands that are considered to
be ecologically important and sensitive on a provincial or local scale. The biodiversity of
these systems is not usually sensitive to flow and habitat modifications. They play a small
role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers).
o It is considered unlikely that the disturbed and degraded wetland habitat associated with
the unchannelled valley bottom wetland will support rare and endangered species or
populations of unique species. The wetland is however likely to provide suitable breeding
and foraging habitat for faunal species considered to be more common within the region.
o The unchannelled valley bottom wetland is not formally protected, however, the East
Coast Shale Renosterveld wetland vegetation group is critically endangered within the
region.
o The wetland calculated an overall low PES score (Largely modified), and therefore scored
low for ecological integrity.
o The wetland has a low diversity of habitat types.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 33
Figure 7: Image from the Freshwater Impact Assessment indicating Wetlands and rivers associated with the
proposed dam
Figure 8: Image from the Freshwater Impact Assessment indicating the ESAs associated with the proposed
dam
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 34
Figure 9: Unchanneled valley bottom wetland indicated in relation to the proposed dam
9.2.2 Impact Assessment
The following direct impacts are expected to occur during the construction and
operational phase of the proposed dam, should it be authorised, taken from the
specialist report.
Table 3: Freshwater Impact Assessment from specialist
Assessment of Direct Construction Impact
Fresh Water Aspect Short description Significance rating
1. Loss of seasonal
and temporary
wetland habitat
Seasonal and temporary wetland
habitat will be lost from the wetland
system during earthmoving activities.
The development of the dam will
result in the direct loss of ±38% of
seasonal and brackish wetland habitat
which will be replaced with permanent
freshwater wetland habitat during
operational phase,
Transformation of the
wetland habitat is
considered of medium
intensity and the impact
will be permanent.
Without
mitigation:
Medium
With
mitigation:
N/A
2. Disturbance of
wetland habitat
due to edge
effects
Edge effects of construction related
activities such as movement of
vehicles, personnel and dumping of
excavated material may result in
Disturbance of wetland
habitat due to edge effect
is considered to be of
medium significance and
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 35
disturbance of wetland vegetation and
soils. Existing cultivation activities and
rock dumping decreased the Present
Ecological State (PES) of the
unchanneled valley bottom to a
category C (moderately modified)
the impact could remain
for a long time. However,
with the mitigation
measures, intensity and
duration of the impact can
be decreased to a very
low significance.
Without
mitigation:
Medium
With
mitigation:
Very Low
3. Increased runoff,
erosion and
sedimentation
Increase in stormwater runoff from
cleared, disturbed and compacted
areas may result in an increase storm
flows into the unchanneled valley
bottom wetland. This can result in
erosion and incision of the wetlands
system. Earthmoving activities can
result in runoff of sediment into
downstream wetland habitat. Straw
ballets can be used to intercept
sediment and decrease velocity flows,
The impact is of medium
intensity and of a medium
significance. The use of
straw bales will not
entirely prevent impact
but reduce the
significance.
Without
mitigation:
Medium
With
mitigation:
Very Low
4. Water quality
impairment
Movement of vehicles through
unchanneled valley bottom wetland
increase the possibility of
contamination of wetland by
hydrocarbon spills. The possibility
exist that the wetland will be
contaminated by runoff cement and
other construction related materials.
These activities are considered
preventable with ongoing inspection of
vehicles/ machinery and use
construction material with no
pollution/leaching potential.
Without
mitigation:
Very low
With
mitigation:
Very Low
Assessment of Direct Operational Impact
Fresh Water Aspect Short description: Significance rating
1. Alternation of the
hydrological
regime and
vegetation
characteristics of
the unchanneled
The pumping of freshwater into the
dam during operational phase will
result in a change of the hydrological
regime of the wetland and result in
prolonged saturation of soil and
extended periods of inundation. As a
The overall impact is
considered to be of a
medium significance. The
implementation of
mitigation measures will
not prevent the alteration
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 36
valley bottom
wetland
result, seasonal and temporary
vegetation communities removed
during construction will not recover
during the operational phase. This
vegetation might only recolonise the
shallow fringes of the dam and be
replaced by a less diverse obligate
wetland vegetation community where
water depth increases. The dam will
not completely impede the flow
through the wetland. Freshwater will
be abstracted from an upstream
tributary. Brackish water currently
conveyed by the portion of the
unchanneled valley bottom wetland
upslope of the proposed dam will be
intercepted by a pipeline which will
convey the water below the dam ad
discharge water into a portion of the
wetland downstream of the dam.
Therefor the main impact would be
the alternation of the hydrological
regime of areas directly upstream of
the dam.
of the hydrology of
wetland areas upstream
of the dam and the
impact will remain
medium as long as the
dam is in use.
Without
mitigation:
Medium
With
mitigation:
N/A
2. Erosion of
downstream
wetland habitat
Brackish water currently conveyed by
the portion of the unchanneled valley
bottom wetland upslope of the
proposed dam will be intercepted by a
pipeline which will convey the water
below the dam ad discharge water
into a portion of the wetland
downstream of the dam. The
concentrated discharge of water from
the pipe will result in erosion and
incision of the downstream wetland
area where water is released.
Concentrated release of bottom water
from the dam is likely to result in
erosion at the area where water is
discharged.
The impact is considered
medium significance prior
to the implementation of
mitigation measures and
promotion of diffuse flow
at discharge point will
reduce the overall impact
to very low.
Without
mitigation:
Low
With
mitigation:
Very Low
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 37
9.2.3 Mitigation measures:
The following section will discuss the mitigation measures as recommended by the
specialist for the mitigation of direct construction and operational phases of the proposed
project on the receiving environment.
Mitigating the loss of seasonal and temporary habitat during construction phase:
No mitigation measures are suggested as with the construction of the dam, loss of
temporary habitat will occur regardless of the implementation of mitigation measures.
Mitigating the disturbance of wetland habitat due to edge effects during
construction phase:
• Physically demarcate the footprint of the proposed dam and strictly prohibit any
vehicles or construction related activities outside of the demarcated footprint
area. This can be done with danger tape, which should be removed once the
construction activities have been completed.
• Immediately rip compacted soil to a depth of 300mm and reprofile the area
according to natural terrain units where any accidental disturbance to portions of
the unchanneled valley bottom wetland falling outside of the demarcated
construction footprint area has taken place. If the disturbed area will be prone to
erosion (sheet runoff or formation of gullies), it is recommended that straw bales
(not Lucerne or hay) are used to intercept the bulk of the runoff. The bales should
be placed strategically along contour lines and pegged. Disturbance and removal
of vegetation within the immediate vicinity of the area where the bales are placed
should be kept to a minimum. Sediment should be cleared manually as needed.
• If stockpiling of any material is required, stockpiles must be located at least 32m
from the border of the unchannelled valley bottom wetland.
• Prohibit the dumping of excess excavated material within the unchannelled valley
bottom wetland.
• Once construction has been completed all construction waste, rubble, and
equipment must be removed from the construction area.
• Once construction of the dam has been completed, remove alien and invasive
individuals, manually as far as practically possible, from the construction footprint
as well as any areas accidentally disturbed. These areas should be monitored in
monthly intervals and seedlings removed as needed. The use of herbicides
should be avoided. However, if necessary, only herbicides which have been
certified safe for use in wetlands/aquatic environments by an independent testing
authority may be considered. Cover removed alien plant material properly when
transported, to prevent it from being blown from vehicles and burn on a bunded
surface where no stormwater runoff is expected.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 38
Mitigating increased runoff, erosion and sedimentation during construction
phase:
• Implement erosion control measures (e.g. strategically placed straw bales,
diverting stormwater away from areas susceptible to erosion etc.) in order to
prevent erosion and sedimentation of downstream wetland areas.
• Strategically divert runoff from areas where earth moving activities is undertaken
in the direction of pegged straw bales where required, in an attempt to intercept
sediment-laden runoff before it reaches downstream wetland habitat.
• Check straw bales weekly to ensure these are still intact (can be done by the
proponent or a reliable farm employee) and cleared of sediment as needed.
• Protect stockpiles, if required, from erosion using tarp or erosion blankets.
• The contractor or proponent must check the site for erosion damage and
sedimentation after every heavy rainfall event. Should erosion or sedimentation
be noted, immediate corrective measures must be undertaken. Rehabilitation
measures may include the manual removal of accumulated sediment, the filling
of erosion gullies and rills, and the stabilization of gullies with silt fences.
• Development of the dam should be undertaken during the dry summer months.
• Seed the dam wall after construction with indigenous grass that has a good soil
binding capacity such as Cynodon dactylon or stabilised with geotextiles in order
to prevent erosion.
Mitigating water quality impairment during construction phase:
• Avoid the use of infill material or construction material with pollution / leaching
potential.
• Clean up any spillages (e.g. concrete, oil, fuel), immediately. Remove
contaminated soil and dispose of it appropriately.
• Store fuel, chemicals and other hazardous substances in suitable secure
weather-proof containers with impermeable and bunded floors to limit pilferage,
spillage into the environment, flooding or storm damage.
• Inspect all storage facilities and vehicles daily for the early detection of
deterioration or leaks.
• Dispose of used oils, wash water from cement and other pollutants at an
appropriate licensed landfill site. Disposal of any of these within the valley bottom
wetland should be strictly prohibited.
• Dispose of concrete and cement-related mortars in an environmental sensitive
manner (can be toxic to aquatic life). Washout should not be discharged into the
valley bottom wetland.
• Provide portable toilets where work is being undertaken. These toilets must be
located at least 32m from the boundary of the valley bottom wetland and must be
serviced regularly in order to prevent leakage/spillage.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 39
Mitigating the alteration of the hydrological regime and vegetation characteristics
of the unchanneled valley bottom wetland during operational phase:
The implementation of mitigation measures will not prevent the alteration of the
hydrology of wetland areas upstream of the dam and the impact will therefore remain
medium (negative) as long as the dam remains in use.
Mitigating erosion of downstream wetland habitat during operational phase:
• Promote diffuse flow at discharge areas. Diffuse flow may be promoted with the
use of perforated pipes at outlets or with the use of spreaders or rip-rap
mattresses at discharge points.
• If vegetation does not establish after construction, revegetate discharge areas
with wetland species indigenous to the area. Vegetation will aid in dispersing
concentrated flows and will decrease the velocity and erosive potential of flows.
Furthermore, the roots of vegetation will aid in binding the soils thereby reducing
the possibility of erosion.
• Monitor discharge points for erosion and incision on a quarterly basis and after
heavy rainfall events. Should erosion and incision be noted, immediate corrective
measures must be undertaken. Rehabilitation measures may include the filling of
erosion gullies and rills, and the stabilization of gullies with silt fences.
9.2.4 Conclusion:
The unchannelled valley bottom wetland was calculated to fall within a Category C PES
and is considered to be of a moderate EIS. The development of the proposed dam will
result in a decrease in the hydrology and vegetation condition of the wetland from a
Category C PES (Moderately modified) to a Category E PES (Seriously Modified). The
overall health of the wetland after the development of the dam will fall within a Category
D PES (Largely modified). It is therefore recommended that the PES of the wetland is
maintained as a Category D PES and the PES should not be allowed to decrease any
further. Furthermore, the wetland has been indicated as a Category 2 ESA (WCBSP,
2017) for which the objectives are to restore or manage the feature to minimize impacts
on ecological processes and ecological infrastructure functioning.
Following the assessment of direct impacts, it can be surmised that the significance of
the majority of the impacts associated with the proposed development of the dam can be
reduced with the implementation of effective mitigation measures. The exception would
be the loss of temporary and seasonal wetland habitat during the construction phase
and alteration of the hydrological regime and vegetation characteristics during the
operational phase which both rated a medium (negative) impact significance and for
which no practical mitigation would be possible.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 40
Taking into consideration the degree to which the ESA wetland in which the
development of the dam is proposed, has already been transformed, as well as the high
potential of effectively mitigating most construction and operational related impacts, it is
the opinion of the specialist that the proposed project may proceed. It should however be
noted that the proposed construction of the dam will require Environmental Authorisation
in terms of the NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2014) as well as
authorisation from DWS in terms of Section 21 (c) and (i) of the NWA.
9.3 Botanical Impact Assessment
The Botanical Impact Assessment was conductive by Dr Dave Mc Donald from Bergwind
Botanical Surveys & Tours cc who has a sound knowledge of the area. Please refer to
Appendix 7.3 for the full report.
9.3.1 Key findings:
• A single Critically Endangered (A1) vegetation type, Central Rûens Shale
Renosterveld would have been the original vegetation type found over an
extensive area and over most of Van der Watts Kraal. At the study site this
vegetation type persists as a small remnant on both sides of the stream below
the existing two small dams.
• The remnant renosterveld was found to be species-rich but not all species were
in flower or were identifiable even though the survey was undertaken in spring.
No species of conservation concern were recorded but the importance of the
remnant should nevertheless not be underestimated.
• It is estimated that approximately 1.5 ha of the remnant renosterveld would be
lost due to dam construction and inundation (operation). This is roughly half of
the renosterveld found along the stream.
• The impact of the loss of Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld at a local scale at
the Dasberg Dam site would result in Medium negative impact but the proposed
conservation easement and recommended ‘Search and Rescue’ (see below)
would provide mitigation for the lost habitat.
• Plants that can be relocated such as geophytes (bulbs) and succulents e.g.
Trichodiadema sp. should be located, marked and rescued before the dam-
building commences. The rescued plants should be relocated into the remaining
part of the remnant not affected by the dam or to the area of the conservation
easement.
• The proposed site falls within an Ecological Support Area 2 (ESA2) and thus has
a conservation merit but is not essential to meeting conservation targets.
• The area is also classified as a Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 41
• No Red List Species were encountered during the survey, but the possibility of
the presence of Ixia longituba may be encountered.
9.3.2 Impact Assessment:
As per the specialist report the impact of the proposed Dasberg Dam development on
the vegetation and habitat are considered with respect to:
• Loss of vegetation type and habitat including plant species due to construction
and operational activities;
• Loss of ecological processes due to construction and operational activities.
Loss of vegetation type and habitat including plant species due to construction
and operational activities:
If development option is followed there would be a MEDIUM NEGATIVE impact on the
remnant renosterveld, but a very LOW NEGATIVE impact on the cultivated area. After
mitigation, the impact would be LOW NEGATIVE on the natural vegetation.
Table 4.1: Botanical Impact Assessment from specialist
CRITERIA ‘NO GO’ ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Construction of Dasberg Dam
Nature of direct impact (local scale)
Loss of Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld
WITHOUT MITIGATION
WITH MITIGATION
WITHOUT MITIGATION
WITH
MITIGATION
Extent Local Local Local Local
Duration Long-term Long-term Long-term Long-term
Intensity Low Low High High
Probability of occurrence Probable Probable Probable Probable
Confidence High High High High
Significance Negligible Negligible Medium negative Low negative
Nature of Cumulative impact Loss of Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation
Low Negative
Degree to which impact can be reversed
Not reversible
Degree to which impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources
Medium
Degree to which impact can be mitigated
Medium
Proposed mitigation Search and rescue of relocatable plants; establishment of a conservation easement elsewhere on the farm Van Der Watts Kraal.
Cumulative impact post mitigation
Low negative
Significance of cumulative impact (broad scale) after mitigation
Low negative
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 42
Loss of Ecological Processes:
The remaining fragment of Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld is small and has low
connectivity by corridors to larger tracts of this vegetation. The natural habitat supports
active birdlife and small mammals no doubt use this area as a refuge. Therefore, there
would be a net loss of ecological processes in the dam inundation area. However,
description and quantification of the ecological processes is not possible and only an
estimate of the impact can be made. For that reason, the impact is rated as MEDIUM
NEGATIVE, as applied only to the remnant natural vegetation that would be lost. No true
mitigation would be possible so the impact would remain as MEDIUM NEGATIVE. In the
grain-fields practically no ecological processes would be lost so the impact would be
VERY LOW NEGATIVE.
Table 4.2: Botanical Impact Assessment from specialist
CRITERIA ‘NO GO’ ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Construction of Dasberg Dam
Nature of direct impact (local scale) Loss of ecological processes
WITHOUT MITIGATION
WITH MITIGATION
WITHOUT MITIGATION
WITH
MITIGATION
Extent Local Local Local Local
Duration Long-term Long-term Long-term Long-term
Intensity Low Low High High
Probability of occurrence Probable Probable Probable Probable
Confidence High High High High
Significance Negligible Negligible Medium negative Medium negative
Nature of Cumulative impact Loss of ecological processes
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation Low Negative
Degree to which impact can be reversed
Not reversible but ecological processes would continue elsewhere
Degree to which impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources
Low
Degree to which impact can be mitigated
Low
Proposed mitigation No mitigation possible
Cumulative impact post mitigation Low negative
Significance of cumulative impact (broad scale) after mitigation
Low negative
Indirect Impacts:
By definition indirect impacts occur away from the ‘action source’ i.e. away from the
development site. The impact assessed here is specifically how the proposed
development would have an indirect impact on vegetation and flora away from the
development site. Indirect impacts would probably be insignificant if any
Please refer to Appendix 7.3 for the specialist report which explains the methodology
used in determining the impacts.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 43
9.3.3 Mitigation Measures:
Mitigating the loss of vegetation type and habitat including plant species due to
construction and operational activities:
• It is strongly recommended that there should be intensive ‘Search and Rescue’ in
the area of renosterveld that would be lost (this would pertain particularly to bulbs
and succulents) and that the rescued plant should be relocated into the area from
waypoint VDW5 westwards that would not be affected by the dam. Please refer
to the specialist report Appendix 6.3. The waypoint refers to an area below the
dam wall, this area should be receptor area for rescued plants.
• A working zone for the dam wall must be determined to conserve as much of the
remaining renosterveld as possible.
• The landowner has entered into an agreement concerning a ‘conservation
easement’ whereby another area of renosterveld is being set aside in
compensation for the loss caused by the dam. That is an acceptable measure,
but it is still advocated that as much of the remnant natural vegetation as
possible at the Dasberg Dam site should be conserved.
Mitigating the loss of Ecological Processes:
• No mitigation for loss of ecological processes would be possible at the site since
the habitat would be lost. However, those (similar) processes would continue in
the area below the dam wall, albeit in a smaller area of natural habitat.
• The conservation easement on the farm Van der Watts Kraal would compensate
for the loss of the remnant renosterveld at the Dasberg Dam site. It is assumed
that since the habitat is renosterveld, the area of the conservation easement is
likely to support similar ecological processes as those found at the proposed dam
site.
9.3.4 Conclusion:
The greater part of the farm Van der Watts Kraal has been transformed to intensive
agriculture; mainly cereal farming and livestock production. Very little Central Rûens
Shale Renosterveld remains and what remains has significant conservation value.
These areas must generally be avoided with no further disturbance permitted. However,
in some circumstances there is no other logical place for a dam except in the in-stream
situation and where there may be, as is the case here, remnant renosterveld vegetation.
It is unfortunate to lose any more renosterveld notwithstanding that the area has a
relatively ‘low’ classification (ESA2) but the positive spin-off is that the dam project has
stimulated the intention of the landowner to set aside an area of intact Central Rûens
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 44
Shale Renosterveld. This would successfully compensate for the localized loss of the
renosterveld at the Dasberg Dam site. The overall result of the impact assessment is
that the ‘No Go’ option would allow the status quo to continue which would have a LOW
NEGATIVE impact on the site. The proposed Dasberg Dam would have a LOW NEGATIVE
impact after mitigation, and given positive actions, both the conservation easement and
‘Search & Rescue’ as mitigation, the development of the dam is supported from a
botanical perspective.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 45
10. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS & CUMMULATIVE EFFECT
10.1 Summary of Impacts
Please refer to Appendix 9 for a summary of the project assessment and significance rating for
pre-construction, construction, operations and rehabilitation of the proposed development, as
well as a summary of mitigation measure.
The following table is a summary of all the impacts assessed, taking in to considerations the risk
assessment of the EAP as well as the specialist report for the development of the proposed
dam and associated infrastructure for the preferred site alternative.
Table 5: Summary of Impact Significance
Study Impact Significance No Mitigation
Significance With Mitigation
Water Loss of wetland habitat Medium Significance Medium Significance
Disturbance of wetland habitat
due to edge effects
Medium Significance Low Significance
Increased runoff, erosion and
sedimentation
Medium Significance Very Low Significance
Water quality impairment Very Low Significance Very Low Significance
Alteration of the hydrological
regime and vegetation of
unchanneled valley bottom
Medium Significance Medium Significance
Erosion of downstream wetland
habitat
Medium Significance Very Low Significance
Botanical Loss of Central Rûens Shale
Renosterveld
Medium Significance Medium Significance
Loss of Ecological Processes Medium Significance Low Significance
Soil Contamination Very Low Significance Very Low Significance
Heritage Heritage resources Very Low Significance Very Low Significance
Dust Dust from topsoil removal,
construction and rehabilitation
Very Low Significance Very Low Significance
No-go
development
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 46
10.2 Cumulative Effect
Cumulative effect in relation to the activity means the past, current and reasonably of future
impact of an activity, considered together with the impact of activities associated with that
activity, that itself may not be significant but may become significant when added to the existing
and reasonably foreseeable impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities.
There has been such as wide spread degradation of Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld in the
Overberg area that the proposed dam would not add significantly to the loss of this vegetation
type. If development continues the impact on cultivated land would be a very of low significance.
The impact on the remnant Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld (the loss of about 1.5 ha) would
be of medium significance, in context, with mitigation this impact would be of low significance.
However, now that there is so little natural vegetation left the cumulative effect of the loss of
even a small area is much more significance. In the current context therefore, the cumulative
impact is at least medium to high significance.
In terms of freshwater systems, watercourses within the region in which the dam is located have
been impacted as a result of past and present agricultural and anthropogenic activities. The
development of the dam within the unchanneled valley bottom wetland will result in additional
transformation of the critically endangered East Coast Shale Renosterveld wetland vegetation
type within the region. However, the transformation of 1,44 ha of already disturbed wetland
habitat is not likely to result in a significant cumulative impact to critically endangered wetland
habitat within the region.
Additionally, the area selected for the dam development falls within a Category 2 ESA. These
areas are not essential for meeting biodiversity targets but play and important role in supporting
the functioning of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) or protected areas and are often vital for
delivery ecosystem services. The management objectives for Category 2 ESAs is to restore or
manage the features to minimize impacts on ecological processes and ecological infrastructure
functioning, especially soil and water related services, and to allow for faunal movement.
Although the development of the dam will result in unavoidable impact of the ESA, it is not
considered detrimental for meeting regional biodiversity targets.
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 47
11. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION
Mitigation measures as recommended by the specialists must be enforced if the proposed
development of the dam were to be approved. These mitigation measures and
recommendations are discussed in Section 9 of this report and have been included in the
Section 6 of the Environmental Impact Report (EMPr) attached as Appendix 12. Please also
refer to the method statement in Appendix 9.
The following specialist studies were undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact
Assessment:
• Heritage Screener
• Freshwater Impact Assessment
• Botanical Impact Assessment
The specialist studies and the information provided within the EIA Report, indicates that the
proposed Dasberg Dam development does not pose any significant impacts and can be
implemented with appropriate mitigation.
In terms of the need and desirability of the proposed development of the Dasberg dam, the
need exists for a storage dam which would provide a sufficient supply of irrigation water that
would be of critical importance to the success and feasibility of the BEE business proposal to
establish 105ha of citrus orchards. The establishment of the citrus branch will create the
opportunity to increase staff on the farm. According to the business plan (Appendix 3), there
are currently 13 families who will directly benefit from the expansion of the citrus orchards, of
which 3 are female workers and the main breadwinners for their families.
Access to the dam will be via existing farm roads, no additional roads will need to be
constructed. The farm is accessible form the N2. The location (Site Alternative 1, which is the)
was also chosen to ensure the project life cycle cost are minimised (gravity feed vs. pumping
station cost), as water will glow with gravitation from the water source to the dam. This would
also reduce the footprint on the environment as no pump station will be necessary. The
proposed site location is preferred due to the favourable soil and foundation conditions. The site
is also in close proximity to the source of water and the citrus orchards will be developed on the
same property as the proposed dam. Neighbours will not lose agricultural land.
The “no-go” option, which is the option of not developing the proposed Dasberg Dam on the
property. Although the no-go development might result in no potential negative environmental
impacts, especially on the vegetation on the development site, the direct and indirect socio-
economic benefits of not constructing the dam will not be realised and the need for employment
opportunities in the Overberg will not be met.
The potential impact on the sense of place of the proposed dam has also been considered. The
surrounding area is characterised by agricultural activities, as well as a number of farm dams in
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 48
the local area, and the proposed dam will therefore not be uncharacteristic for the area. The
sense of place is not expected to be altered by the proposed dam, and no further studies are
suggested.
According the Heritage Screener conducted and comments from Heritage Western Cape, the
proposed development of the dam will not have any negative significant impacts on the heritage
resources of the area.
According the Freshwater Impact Assessment it can be summarised that the significance of the
majority of the impacts associated with the proposed development of the dam can be reduced
with the implementation of effective mitigation measures. The exception would be the loss of
temporary and seasonal wetland habitat during the construction phase and alteration of the
hydrological regime and vegetation characteristics during the operational phase which both
rated a medium (negative) impact significance and for which no practical mitigation would be
possible. Taking into consideration the degree to which the ESA wetland in which the
development of the dam is proposed, has already been transformed, as well as the high
potential of effectively mitigating most construction and operational related impacts, it is the
opinion of the specialist that the proposed project may proceed.
In terms of the Botanical Impact Assessment, the greater part of the farm Van der Watts Kraal
has been transformed to intensive agriculture. Very little Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld
remains and what remains has significant conservation value. These areas must generally be
avoided with no further disturbance permitted. However, in some circumstances there is no
other logical place for a dam except in the in-stream situation and where there may be, as is the
case here, remnant renosterveld vegetation. It is unfortunate to lose any more renosterveld
notwithstanding that the area has a relatively ‘low’ classification (ESA2) but the positive spin-off
is that the dam project has stimulated the intention of the landowner to set aside an area of
intact Central Rûens Shale Renosterveld. This would successfully compensate for the localized
loss of the renosterveld at the Dasberg Dam site. The overall result of the impact assessment is
that the ‘No Go’ option would allow the status quo to continue which would have a low negative
impact on the site. The proposed Dasberg Dam would have a low negative impact after
mitigation, and given positive actions, both the conservation easement and ‘Search & Rescue’
as mitigation, the development of the dam is supported from a botanical perspective.
Considering all the information, it is not envisaged that this Dasberg dam development will have
a significant negative impact on the environment, and the socio-economic benefits are expected
to greatly outweigh any negative impacts.
It is therefore recommended that the proposed Dasberg dam development (Alternative A) be
supported and be authorised with the necessary conditions of approval, subject to the
implementation of the recommended enhancement and mitigation measures contained in
Section 9 of the report and Section 6 of the EMPr (Appendix 6).
Dasberg Dam EIR for comment – January 2018 Page 49
12. DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF THE EAP
This Draft Scoping Report was prepared by Inge Erasmus who has a BA Honours in Geography and
Environmental Studies from Stellenbosch University. Before completing her honours degree Inge gained
practical experience as a junior environmental consultant at Hatch Goba in Johannesburg from 2014 until
2015. Inge acted as an environmental control officer on a variety of projects in the Northern Cape,
conducting environmental compliance audits, as well as being part of a project team working on a major
resettlement project for Kumba Iron ore. Inge joined Enviro Africa in February 2017, generally performing
duties as an environmental assessment practitioner with regards to NEMA EIA applications. The whole
process and report was supervised by Peet Botes who has more than 10 years experience in
environmental management and environmental impact assessments.
Mr Peet Botes is the supervising EAP. Please refer to Appendix 10 for CVs.
(------------------------------------------------END-------------------------------------------------)